Jesse Keating wrote:
On Wednesday 12 July 2006 10:08, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
Probably depends on how often the packages are forked and rebased, and the
amount of changes you do above the original packaging
It'd be great to have a common naming convention when stacked packaging
happens though
Why though? What real problem does it actually solve?
Several reasons.
First, as these packages are maintained upstream (not only the software,
but the spec files and other SRPM bits) it is important to know in which
EVR they are based on. So, if you know that ......6jpp has a fix for
some problem then if the one you have installed is .....6jpp<some fedora
suffix) also has it. That is what Nicholas was talking about.
Second, these packages are supposed to interoperate with other
repositories (remember that only a fraction of Java packages is AOT
built on Fedora), so preserving the upstream EVR string is fundamental
for that to work. This ensure no packages are unduly overwritten when
the two repositories are enabled and that the latest version/releases
prevail.
All Java releases for RHEL have been done this way, by adding _NNrh to
whatever the upstream JPackage EVR was with success.
For Fedora 3 and Fedora package a _NNfc was adopted. Gary Benson used
to have a document describing it, which I thought lived in Fedora pages
somewhere.
There are hundreds of Java packages there, all rebuilt from upstream
JPackage.org, shipped on Fedora for a couple of years with this EVR
convention.
W.r.t. the suffix added after the upstream EVR it does not really
matter. It can be anything people here want it to be. We are updating
the packages so we can use a new suffix as we get them from upstream JPP
1.7 if it is agreed upon quickly (time is running out).
Should we change from the _NNfc convention?
If so, now is my turn to ask: Why?
P.S.: Several upstream (from JPackage perspective, i.e. upstream**2 from
Fedora's point of view) are releasing software with a CVS tag used for
release. They do use that as a reference for questions, but reports
etc., so it is important information. As they are CVS tags, they have
'_'s (underscores) on it.
P.S.2: All non-final releases of JPackage RPMs start with a '0.' prefix,
so they are updated by a final release when (if) it becomes available.
